linux-next: manual merge of the akpm tree with the block tree
Hi Andrew,
Today's linux-next merge of the akpm tree got a conflict in:
fs/block_dev.c
between commit:
b1d2dc5659b4 ("block: Make blk_get_backing_dev_info() safe without open bdev")
from the block tree and patch:
"fs: add i_blocksize()"
from the akpm tree.
I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary. This
is now fixed as far as linux-next is concerned, but any non trivial
conflicts should be mentioned to your upstream maintainer when your tree
is submitted for merging. You may also want to consider cooperating
with the maintainer of the conflicting tree to minimise any particularly
complex conflicts.
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell
diff --cc fs/block_dev.c
index 73031ec54a7b,921e868e84de..
--- a/fs/block_dev.c
+++ b/fs/block_dev.c
@@@ -988,8 -971,7 +988,8 @@@ struct block_device *bdget(dev_t dev
bdev->bd_contains = NULL;
bdev->bd_super = NULL;
bdev->bd_inode = inode;
+ bdev->bd_bdi = _backing_dev_info;
- bdev->bd_block_size = (1 << inode->i_blkbits);
+ bdev->bd_block_size = i_blocksize(inode);
bdev->bd_part_count = 0;
bdev->bd_invalidated = 0;
inode->i_mode = S_IFBLK;
linux-next: manual merge of the akpm tree with the block tree
Hi Andrew,
Today's linux-next merge of the akpm tree got a conflict in:
fs/block_dev.c
between commit:
b1d2dc5659b4 ("block: Make blk_get_backing_dev_info() safe without open bdev")
from the block tree and patch:
"fs: add i_blocksize()"
from the akpm tree.
I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary. This
is now fixed as far as linux-next is concerned, but any non trivial
conflicts should be mentioned to your upstream maintainer when your tree
is submitted for merging. You may also want to consider cooperating
with the maintainer of the conflicting tree to minimise any particularly
complex conflicts.
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell
diff --cc fs/block_dev.c
index 73031ec54a7b,921e868e84de..
--- a/fs/block_dev.c
+++ b/fs/block_dev.c
@@@ -988,8 -971,7 +988,8 @@@ struct block_device *bdget(dev_t dev
bdev->bd_contains = NULL;
bdev->bd_super = NULL;
bdev->bd_inode = inode;
+ bdev->bd_bdi = _backing_dev_info;
- bdev->bd_block_size = (1 << inode->i_blkbits);
+ bdev->bd_block_size = i_blocksize(inode);
bdev->bd_part_count = 0;
bdev->bd_invalidated = 0;
inode->i_mode = S_IFBLK;
linux-next: manual merge of the akpm tree with the block tree
Hi Andrew,
Today's linux-next merge of the akpm tree got a conflict in
mm/filemap_xip.c between commit de1414a654e6 ("fs: export inode_to_bdi
and use it in favor of mapping->backing_dev_info") from the block tree
and commit cd5ca6e1eb43 ("dax,ext2: replace XIP read and write with DAX
I/O") from the akpm tree.
I fixed it up (the latter removed the code modified by the former) and
can carry the fix as necessary (no action is required).
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwells...@canb.auug.org.au
pgp3cfXzUalgf.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
linux-next: manual merge of the akpm tree with the block tree
Hi Andrew, Today's linux-next merge of the akpm tree got a conflict in mm/filemap_xip.c between commit de1414a654e6 (fs: export inode_to_bdi and use it in favor of mapping-backing_dev_info) from the block tree and commit cd5ca6e1eb43 (dax,ext2: replace XIP read and write with DAX I/O) from the akpm tree. I fixed it up (the latter removed the code modified by the former) and can carry the fix as necessary (no action is required). -- Cheers, Stephen Rothwells...@canb.auug.org.au pgp3cfXzUalgf.pgp Description: OpenPGP digital signature
linux-next: manual merge of the akpm tree with the block tree
Hi Andrew,
Today's linux-next merge of the akpm tree got a conflict in
drivers/block/mtip32xx/mtip32xx.c between commit 2077d947260c ("mtip32xx:
Workaround for unaligned writes") from the block tree and commit
"mtip32xx: convert to batch completion" from the akpm tree.
I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary (no action
is required).
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwells...@canb.auug.org.au
diff --cc drivers/block/mtip32xx/mtip32xx.c
index 847107e,4b9603e..000
--- a/drivers/block/mtip32xx/mtip32xx.c
+++ b/drivers/block/mtip32xx/mtip32xx.c
@@@ -2561,8 -2574,8 +2577,8 @@@ static int mtip_hw_ioctl(struct driver_
*None
*/
static void mtip_hw_submit_io(struct driver_data *dd, sector_t sector,
- int nsect, int nents, int tag, void *callback,
- void *data, int dir, int unaligned)
+ int nsect, int nents, int tag,
-struct bio *bio, int dir)
++struct bio *bio, int dir, int unaligned)
{
struct host_to_dev_fis *fis;
struct mtip_port *port = dd->port;
@@@ -3934,10 -3911,8 +3945,9 @@@ static void mtip_make_request(struct re
bio_sectors(bio),
nents,
tag,
- bio_endio,
bio,
- bio_data_dir(bio));
+ bio_data_dir(bio),
+ unaligned);
} else
bio_io_error(bio);
}
pgpD3YvjmAabf.pgp
Description: PGP signature
linux-next: manual merge of the akpm tree with the block tree
Hi Andrew,
Today's linux-next merge of the akpm tree got a conflict in
drivers/block/mtip32xx/mtip32xx.c between commit 2077d947260c (mtip32xx:
Workaround for unaligned writes) from the block tree and commit
mtip32xx: convert to batch completion from the akpm tree.
I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary (no action
is required).
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwells...@canb.auug.org.au
diff --cc drivers/block/mtip32xx/mtip32xx.c
index 847107e,4b9603e..000
--- a/drivers/block/mtip32xx/mtip32xx.c
+++ b/drivers/block/mtip32xx/mtip32xx.c
@@@ -2561,8 -2574,8 +2577,8 @@@ static int mtip_hw_ioctl(struct driver_
*None
*/
static void mtip_hw_submit_io(struct driver_data *dd, sector_t sector,
- int nsect, int nents, int tag, void *callback,
- void *data, int dir, int unaligned)
+ int nsect, int nents, int tag,
-struct bio *bio, int dir)
++struct bio *bio, int dir, int unaligned)
{
struct host_to_dev_fis *fis;
struct mtip_port *port = dd-port;
@@@ -3934,10 -3911,8 +3945,9 @@@ static void mtip_make_request(struct re
bio_sectors(bio),
nents,
tag,
- bio_endio,
bio,
- bio_data_dir(bio));
+ bio_data_dir(bio),
+ unaligned);
} else
bio_io_error(bio);
}
pgpD3YvjmAabf.pgp
Description: PGP signature
linux-next: manual merge of the akpm tree with the block tree
Hi Andrew,
Today's linux-next merge of the akpm tree got a conflict in
block/blk-core.c between commit f79ea4161434 ("block: Refactor
blk_update_request()") from the block tree and commit "block, aio: batch
completion for bios/kiocbs" from the akpm tree.
I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary (no action
is required).
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwells...@canb.auug.org.au
diff --cc block/blk-core.c
index f224d17,186603b..000
--- a/block/blk-core.c
+++ b/block/blk-core.c
@@@ -2280,9 -2251,11 +2281,10 @@@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(blk_fetch_request)
* %false - this request doesn't have any more data
* %true - this request has more data
**/
- bool blk_update_request(struct request *req, int error, unsigned int nr_bytes)
+ bool blk_update_request(struct request *req, int error, unsigned int nr_bytes,
+ struct batch_complete *batch)
{
- int total_bytes, bio_nbytes, next_idx = 0;
- struct bio *bio;
+ int total_bytes;
if (!req->bio)
return false;
@@@ -2328,21 -2301,56 +2330,21 @@@
blk_account_io_completion(req, nr_bytes);
- total_bytes = bio_nbytes = 0;
- while ((bio = req->bio) != NULL) {
- int nbytes;
+ total_bytes = 0;
+ while (req->bio) {
+ struct bio *bio = req->bio;
+ unsigned bio_bytes = min(bio->bi_size, nr_bytes);
- if (nr_bytes >= bio->bi_size) {
+ if (bio_bytes == bio->bi_size)
req->bio = bio->bi_next;
- nbytes = bio->bi_size;
- req_bio_endio(req, bio, nbytes, error, batch);
- next_idx = 0;
- bio_nbytes = 0;
- } else {
- int idx = bio->bi_idx + next_idx;
- req_bio_endio(req, bio, bio_bytes, error);
- if (unlikely(idx >= bio->bi_vcnt)) {
- blk_dump_rq_flags(req, "__end_that");
- printk(KERN_ERR "%s: bio idx %d >= vcnt %d\n",
- __func__, idx, bio->bi_vcnt);
- break;
- }
++ req_bio_endio(req, bio, bio_bytes, error, batch);
- nbytes = bio_iovec_idx(bio, idx)->bv_len;
- BIO_BUG_ON(nbytes > bio->bi_size);
+ total_bytes += bio_bytes;
+ nr_bytes -= bio_bytes;
- /*
- * not a complete bvec done
- */
- if (unlikely(nbytes > nr_bytes)) {
- bio_nbytes += nr_bytes;
- total_bytes += nr_bytes;
- break;
- }
-
- /*
- * advance to the next vector
- */
- next_idx++;
- bio_nbytes += nbytes;
- }
-
- total_bytes += nbytes;
- nr_bytes -= nbytes;
-
- bio = req->bio;
- if (bio) {
- /*
- * end more in this run, or just return 'not-done'
- */
- if (unlikely(nr_bytes <= 0))
- break;
- }
+ if (!nr_bytes)
+ break;
}
/*
pgpVwBKddM2Jq.pgp
Description: PGP signature
linux-next: manual merge of the akpm tree with the block tree
Hi Andrew,
Today's linux-next merge of the akpm tree got conflicts in
drivers/md/raid1.c and drivers/md/raid10.c between commit 9e882242c619
("block: Add submit_bio_wait(), remove from md") from the block tree and
commit "block: prep work for batch completion" from the akpm tree.
I fixed it up (by removing the functions from the files as in the block
tree patch) and can carry the fix as necessary (no action is required).
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwells...@canb.auug.org.au
pgpxPFEbmoB8Q.pgp
Description: PGP signature
linux-next: manual merge of the akpm tree with the block tree
Hi Andrew,
Today's linux-next merge of the akpm tree got a conflict in
include/linux/blk_types.h between commit a38352e0ac02 ("block: Add an
explicit bio flag for bios that own their bvec") from the block tree and
commit "mm: make snapshotting pages for stable writes a per-bio
operation" from the akpm tree.
I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary (no action
is required).
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwells...@canb.auug.org.au
diff --cc include/linux/blk_types.h
index e8de670,22990cf..000
--- a/include/linux/blk_types.h
+++ b/include/linux/blk_types.h
@@@ -116,8 -117,7 +117,8 @@@ struct bio
* Flags starting here get preserved by bio_reset() - this includes
* BIO_POOL_IDX()
*/
- #define BIO_RESET_BITS12
- #define BIO_OWNS_VEC 12 /* bio_free() should free bvec */
+ #define BIO_RESET_BITS13
++#define BIO_OWNS_VEC 13 /* bio_free() should free bvec */
#define bio_flagged(bio, flag)((bio)->bi_flags & (1 << (flag)))
pgpOTgIDvUY5x.pgp
Description: PGP signature
linux-next: manual merge of the akpm tree with the block tree
Hi Andrew, Today's linux-next merge of the akpm tree got a conflict in include/linux/blk_types.h between commit a38352e0ac02 (block: Add an explicit bio flag for bios that own their bvec) from the block tree and commit mm: make snapshotting pages for stable writes a per-bio operation from the akpm tree. I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary (no action is required). -- Cheers, Stephen Rothwells...@canb.auug.org.au diff --cc include/linux/blk_types.h index e8de670,22990cf..000 --- a/include/linux/blk_types.h +++ b/include/linux/blk_types.h @@@ -116,8 -117,7 +117,8 @@@ struct bio * Flags starting here get preserved by bio_reset() - this includes * BIO_POOL_IDX() */ - #define BIO_RESET_BITS12 - #define BIO_OWNS_VEC 12 /* bio_free() should free bvec */ + #define BIO_RESET_BITS13 ++#define BIO_OWNS_VEC 13 /* bio_free() should free bvec */ #define bio_flagged(bio, flag)((bio)-bi_flags (1 (flag))) pgpOTgIDvUY5x.pgp Description: PGP signature
linux-next: manual merge of the akpm tree with the block tree
Hi Andrew, Today's linux-next merge of the akpm tree got conflicts in drivers/md/raid1.c and drivers/md/raid10.c between commit 9e882242c619 (block: Add submit_bio_wait(), remove from md) from the block tree and commit block: prep work for batch completion from the akpm tree. I fixed it up (by removing the functions from the files as in the block tree patch) and can carry the fix as necessary (no action is required). -- Cheers, Stephen Rothwells...@canb.auug.org.au pgpxPFEbmoB8Q.pgp Description: PGP signature
linux-next: manual merge of the akpm tree with the block tree
Hi Andrew,
Today's linux-next merge of the akpm tree got a conflict in
block/blk-core.c between commit f79ea4161434 (block: Refactor
blk_update_request()) from the block tree and commit block, aio: batch
completion for bios/kiocbs from the akpm tree.
I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary (no action
is required).
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwells...@canb.auug.org.au
diff --cc block/blk-core.c
index f224d17,186603b..000
--- a/block/blk-core.c
+++ b/block/blk-core.c
@@@ -2280,9 -2251,11 +2281,10 @@@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(blk_fetch_request)
* %false - this request doesn't have any more data
* %true - this request has more data
**/
- bool blk_update_request(struct request *req, int error, unsigned int nr_bytes)
+ bool blk_update_request(struct request *req, int error, unsigned int nr_bytes,
+ struct batch_complete *batch)
{
- int total_bytes, bio_nbytes, next_idx = 0;
- struct bio *bio;
+ int total_bytes;
if (!req-bio)
return false;
@@@ -2328,21 -2301,56 +2330,21 @@@
blk_account_io_completion(req, nr_bytes);
- total_bytes = bio_nbytes = 0;
- while ((bio = req-bio) != NULL) {
- int nbytes;
+ total_bytes = 0;
+ while (req-bio) {
+ struct bio *bio = req-bio;
+ unsigned bio_bytes = min(bio-bi_size, nr_bytes);
- if (nr_bytes = bio-bi_size) {
+ if (bio_bytes == bio-bi_size)
req-bio = bio-bi_next;
- nbytes = bio-bi_size;
- req_bio_endio(req, bio, nbytes, error, batch);
- next_idx = 0;
- bio_nbytes = 0;
- } else {
- int idx = bio-bi_idx + next_idx;
- req_bio_endio(req, bio, bio_bytes, error);
- if (unlikely(idx = bio-bi_vcnt)) {
- blk_dump_rq_flags(req, __end_that);
- printk(KERN_ERR %s: bio idx %d = vcnt %d\n,
- __func__, idx, bio-bi_vcnt);
- break;
- }
++ req_bio_endio(req, bio, bio_bytes, error, batch);
- nbytes = bio_iovec_idx(bio, idx)-bv_len;
- BIO_BUG_ON(nbytes bio-bi_size);
+ total_bytes += bio_bytes;
+ nr_bytes -= bio_bytes;
- /*
- * not a complete bvec done
- */
- if (unlikely(nbytes nr_bytes)) {
- bio_nbytes += nr_bytes;
- total_bytes += nr_bytes;
- break;
- }
-
- /*
- * advance to the next vector
- */
- next_idx++;
- bio_nbytes += nbytes;
- }
-
- total_bytes += nbytes;
- nr_bytes -= nbytes;
-
- bio = req-bio;
- if (bio) {
- /*
- * end more in this run, or just return 'not-done'
- */
- if (unlikely(nr_bytes = 0))
- break;
- }
+ if (!nr_bytes)
+ break;
}
/*
pgpVwBKddM2Jq.pgp
Description: PGP signature
linux-next: manual merge of the akpm tree with the block tree
Hi Andrew,
Today's linux-next merge of the akpm tree got a conflict in fs/bio.c
between commit 3a366e614d08 ("block: add missing block_bio_complete()
tracepoint") from the block tree and commit "block, aio: batch completion
for bios/kiocbs" from the akpm tree.
I am not sure how to fix this up, so I just dropped the block tree
additions of "trace_block_bio_complete(bio, error);" to this file.
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwells...@canb.auug.org.au
pgp5ddvbbUQUb.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Re: linux-next: manual merge of the akpm tree with the block tree
On 1/14/2013 9:28 AM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi Andrew,
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the akpm tree got a conflict in
> drivers/block/mtip32xx/mtip32xx.c between commit 16c906e51c6f ("mtip32xx:
> Add workqueue and NUMA support") from the tree and commit "mtip32xx:
> convert to batch completion" from the akpm tree.
>
> I couldn't see how to fix up the conflicts, so I just dropped the akpm
> tree patch.
>
I will fix this and send out the patch.
--
Regards,
Asai
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: linux-next: manual merge of the akpm tree with the block tree
On 1/14/2013 9:28 AM, Stephen Rothwell wrote: Hi Andrew, Today's linux-next merge of the akpm tree got a conflict in drivers/block/mtip32xx/mtip32xx.c between commit 16c906e51c6f (mtip32xx: Add workqueue and NUMA support) from the tree and commit mtip32xx: convert to batch completion from the akpm tree. I couldn't see how to fix up the conflicts, so I just dropped the akpm tree patch. I will fix this and send out the patch. -- Regards, Asai -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
linux-next: manual merge of the akpm tree with the block tree
Hi Andrew, Today's linux-next merge of the akpm tree got a conflict in fs/bio.c between commit 3a366e614d08 (block: add missing block_bio_complete() tracepoint) from the block tree and commit block, aio: batch completion for bios/kiocbs from the akpm tree. I am not sure how to fix this up, so I just dropped the block tree additions of trace_block_bio_complete(bio, error); to this file. -- Cheers, Stephen Rothwells...@canb.auug.org.au pgp5ddvbbUQUb.pgp Description: PGP signature
linux-next: manual merge of the akpm tree with the block tree
Hi Andrew,
Today's linux-next merge of the akpm tree got a conflict in
drivers/block/mtip32xx/mtip32xx.c between commit 16c906e51c6f ("mtip32xx:
Add workqueue and NUMA support") from the tree and commit "mtip32xx:
convert to batch completion" from the akpm tree.
I couldn't see how to fix up the conflicts, so I just dropped the akpm
tree patch.
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwells...@canb.auug.org.au
pgplr0t_TbDdQ.pgp
Description: PGP signature
linux-next: manual merge of the akpm tree with the block tree
Hi Andrew, Today's linux-next merge of the akpm tree got a conflict in drivers/block/mtip32xx/mtip32xx.c between commit 16c906e51c6f (mtip32xx: Add workqueue and NUMA support) from the tree and commit mtip32xx: convert to batch completion from the akpm tree. I couldn't see how to fix up the conflicts, so I just dropped the akpm tree patch. -- Cheers, Stephen Rothwells...@canb.auug.org.au pgplr0t_TbDdQ.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: linux-next: manual merge of the akpm tree with the block tree
On 2012-11-12 14:29, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Nov 2012 14:20:17 -0700
> Jens Axboe wrote:
>
>> On 2012-11-12 14:07, Andrew Morton wrote:
>>> On Mon, 12 Nov 2012 15:15:40 +1100
>>> Stephen Rothwell wrote:
>>>
Hi Andrew,
Today's linux-next merge of the akpm tree got a conflict in
drivers/memstick/core/ms_block.h between commit 0604fa04ccc7 ("memstick:
add support for legacy memorysticks") that use to be in the block tree
and commits "memstick: remove unused field from state struct", "memstick:
ms_block: fix compile issue", "memstick: use after free in
msb_disk_release()" and "memstick: memory leak on error in msb_ftl_scan
()" from the akpm tree.
The block tree commit has been dropped, so the 4 akpm tree patches no
longer have anything to apply to, so I have dropped them.
>>>
>>> Confused. Who dropped "memstick: add support for legacy memorysticks"?
>>> You, or Jens?
>>
>> I dropped it for 3.7 submission, that's why it disappeared from my
>> for-next.
>
> But linux-next is the candidate 3.8 tree, so the memstick patches
> should be in there. Or did you mean "3.8"?
Agree, and it is holding 3.8 stuff, memstick just wasn't added back
yet...
--
Jens Axboe
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: linux-next: manual merge of the akpm tree with the block tree
On Mon, 12 Nov 2012 14:20:17 -0700
Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 2012-11-12 14:07, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Mon, 12 Nov 2012 15:15:40 +1100
> > Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> >
> >> Hi Andrew,
> >>
> >> Today's linux-next merge of the akpm tree got a conflict in
> >> drivers/memstick/core/ms_block.h between commit 0604fa04ccc7 ("memstick:
> >> add support for legacy memorysticks") that use to be in the block tree
> >> and commits "memstick: remove unused field from state struct", "memstick:
> >> ms_block: fix compile issue", "memstick: use after free in
> >> msb_disk_release()" and "memstick: memory leak on error in msb_ftl_scan
> >> ()" from the akpm tree.
> >>
> >> The block tree commit has been dropped, so the 4 akpm tree patches no
> >> longer have anything to apply to, so I have dropped them.
> >
> > Confused. Who dropped "memstick: add support for legacy memorysticks"?
> > You, or Jens?
>
> I dropped it for 3.7 submission, that's why it disappeared from my
> for-next.
But linux-next is the candidate 3.8 tree, so the memstick patches
should be in there. Or did you mean "3.8"?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: linux-next: manual merge of the akpm tree with the block tree
On 2012-11-12 14:07, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Nov 2012 15:15:40 +1100
> Stephen Rothwell wrote:
>
>> Hi Andrew,
>>
>> Today's linux-next merge of the akpm tree got a conflict in
>> drivers/memstick/core/ms_block.h between commit 0604fa04ccc7 ("memstick:
>> add support for legacy memorysticks") that use to be in the block tree
>> and commits "memstick: remove unused field from state struct", "memstick:
>> ms_block: fix compile issue", "memstick: use after free in
>> msb_disk_release()" and "memstick: memory leak on error in msb_ftl_scan
>> ()" from the akpm tree.
>>
>> The block tree commit has been dropped, so the 4 akpm tree patches no
>> longer have anything to apply to, so I have dropped them.
>
> Confused. Who dropped "memstick: add support for legacy memorysticks"?
> You, or Jens?
I dropped it for 3.7 submission, that's why it disappeared from my
for-next.
> Assuming the block-tree memstick patches will rematerialise, I'll send
> those patches at Jens.
Thanks, I'll queue them up.
--
Jens Axboe
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: linux-next: manual merge of the akpm tree with the block tree
On Mon, 12 Nov 2012 15:15:40 +1100
Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi Andrew,
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the akpm tree got a conflict in
> drivers/memstick/core/ms_block.h between commit 0604fa04ccc7 ("memstick:
> add support for legacy memorysticks") that use to be in the block tree
> and commits "memstick: remove unused field from state struct", "memstick:
> ms_block: fix compile issue", "memstick: use after free in
> msb_disk_release()" and "memstick: memory leak on error in msb_ftl_scan
> ()" from the akpm tree.
>
> The block tree commit has been dropped, so the 4 akpm tree patches no
> longer have anything to apply to, so I have dropped them.
Confused. Who dropped "memstick: add support for legacy memorysticks"?
You, or Jens?
Assuming the block-tree memstick patches will rematerialise, I'll send
those patches at Jens.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: linux-next: manual merge of the akpm tree with the block tree
On Mon, 12 Nov 2012 15:15:40 +1100 Stephen Rothwell s...@canb.auug.org.au wrote: Hi Andrew, Today's linux-next merge of the akpm tree got a conflict in drivers/memstick/core/ms_block.h between commit 0604fa04ccc7 (memstick: add support for legacy memorysticks) that use to be in the block tree and commits memstick: remove unused field from state struct, memstick: ms_block: fix compile issue, memstick: use after free in msb_disk_release() and memstick: memory leak on error in msb_ftl_scan () from the akpm tree. The block tree commit has been dropped, so the 4 akpm tree patches no longer have anything to apply to, so I have dropped them. Confused. Who dropped memstick: add support for legacy memorysticks? You, or Jens? Assuming the block-tree memstick patches will rematerialise, I'll send those patches at Jens. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: linux-next: manual merge of the akpm tree with the block tree
On 2012-11-12 14:07, Andrew Morton wrote: On Mon, 12 Nov 2012 15:15:40 +1100 Stephen Rothwell s...@canb.auug.org.au wrote: Hi Andrew, Today's linux-next merge of the akpm tree got a conflict in drivers/memstick/core/ms_block.h between commit 0604fa04ccc7 (memstick: add support for legacy memorysticks) that use to be in the block tree and commits memstick: remove unused field from state struct, memstick: ms_block: fix compile issue, memstick: use after free in msb_disk_release() and memstick: memory leak on error in msb_ftl_scan () from the akpm tree. The block tree commit has been dropped, so the 4 akpm tree patches no longer have anything to apply to, so I have dropped them. Confused. Who dropped memstick: add support for legacy memorysticks? You, or Jens? I dropped it for 3.7 submission, that's why it disappeared from my for-next. Assuming the block-tree memstick patches will rematerialise, I'll send those patches at Jens. Thanks, I'll queue them up. -- Jens Axboe -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: linux-next: manual merge of the akpm tree with the block tree
On Mon, 12 Nov 2012 14:20:17 -0700 Jens Axboe ax...@kernel.dk wrote: On 2012-11-12 14:07, Andrew Morton wrote: On Mon, 12 Nov 2012 15:15:40 +1100 Stephen Rothwell s...@canb.auug.org.au wrote: Hi Andrew, Today's linux-next merge of the akpm tree got a conflict in drivers/memstick/core/ms_block.h between commit 0604fa04ccc7 (memstick: add support for legacy memorysticks) that use to be in the block tree and commits memstick: remove unused field from state struct, memstick: ms_block: fix compile issue, memstick: use after free in msb_disk_release() and memstick: memory leak on error in msb_ftl_scan () from the akpm tree. The block tree commit has been dropped, so the 4 akpm tree patches no longer have anything to apply to, so I have dropped them. Confused. Who dropped memstick: add support for legacy memorysticks? You, or Jens? I dropped it for 3.7 submission, that's why it disappeared from my for-next. But linux-next is the candidate 3.8 tree, so the memstick patches should be in there. Or did you mean 3.8? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: linux-next: manual merge of the akpm tree with the block tree
On 2012-11-12 14:29, Andrew Morton wrote: On Mon, 12 Nov 2012 14:20:17 -0700 Jens Axboe ax...@kernel.dk wrote: On 2012-11-12 14:07, Andrew Morton wrote: On Mon, 12 Nov 2012 15:15:40 +1100 Stephen Rothwell s...@canb.auug.org.au wrote: Hi Andrew, Today's linux-next merge of the akpm tree got a conflict in drivers/memstick/core/ms_block.h between commit 0604fa04ccc7 (memstick: add support for legacy memorysticks) that use to be in the block tree and commits memstick: remove unused field from state struct, memstick: ms_block: fix compile issue, memstick: use after free in msb_disk_release() and memstick: memory leak on error in msb_ftl_scan () from the akpm tree. The block tree commit has been dropped, so the 4 akpm tree patches no longer have anything to apply to, so I have dropped them. Confused. Who dropped memstick: add support for legacy memorysticks? You, or Jens? I dropped it for 3.7 submission, that's why it disappeared from my for-next. But linux-next is the candidate 3.8 tree, so the memstick patches should be in there. Or did you mean 3.8? Agree, and it is holding 3.8 stuff, memstick just wasn't added back yet... -- Jens Axboe -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
linux-next: manual merge of the akpm tree with the block tree
Hi Andrew,
Today's linux-next merge of the akpm tree got a conflict in
drivers/memstick/core/ms_block.h between commit 0604fa04ccc7 ("memstick:
add support for legacy memorysticks") that use to be in the block tree
and commits "memstick: remove unused field from state struct", "memstick:
ms_block: fix compile issue", "memstick: use after free in
msb_disk_release()" and "memstick: memory leak on error in msb_ftl_scan
()" from the akpm tree.
The block tree commit has been dropped, so the 4 akpm tree patches no
longer have anything to apply to, so I have dropped them.
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwells...@canb.auug.org.au
pgppGcDnhKEZy.pgp
Description: PGP signature
linux-next: manual merge of the akpm tree with the block tree
Hi Andrew, Today's linux-next merge of the akpm tree got a conflict in drivers/memstick/core/ms_block.h between commit 0604fa04ccc7 (memstick: add support for legacy memorysticks) that use to be in the block tree and commits memstick: remove unused field from state struct, memstick: ms_block: fix compile issue, memstick: use after free in msb_disk_release() and memstick: memory leak on error in msb_ftl_scan () from the akpm tree. The block tree commit has been dropped, so the 4 akpm tree patches no longer have anything to apply to, so I have dropped them. -- Cheers, Stephen Rothwells...@canb.auug.org.au pgppGcDnhKEZy.pgp Description: PGP signature
